Complainant entitled for compensation before Consumer Commission when fault of respondent proved by Civil Court.

Generally, a case for deficiency in services is filed before the consumer commissions with a prayer for compensation towards actual loss, mental agony, cost of litigation and also for incidental losses if any. In the present case an NRI complainant was compelled to seek High court of Punjab and Haryana to intervene and order the Canara bank to transfer fixed deposit amount under FCRN account to his account at UK and got favorable order from HC Thereafter he contacted State Commission set up under consumer protection act for compensation towards mental agony he had undergone and State commission held complainant entitled for the same. This is an appeal case before NC wherein National Commission upheld the order of state commission and also raised the amount of compensation when fault on the part of opposite party got proved in civil court,

Dr Prem Lata, Legal Head

National commission observed that "At the time of filing the complaint in December 2016, Mr Saggu, an NRI, a British citizen, was aged about 88 years, suffering from various ailments. If, at this age, someone who has been settled abroad for the last about 60 years does not get back his own legitimate money from the bank in his home country where he has put it in fixed deposits, one can understand the pain and mental agony undergone by such a person. We agree with Mr Saggu's contentions that Canara Bank has unreasonably and unfairly delayed the matter concerning the transfer of his FCNR deposits, due to which he even had to approach the high court for relief." 

Facts leading to the case  

H c of Punjab and Haryana

One Swaran Singh Saggu, Complainant had deposited English Pounds 10,000 and 9,000 in two different Foreign Currency Non-Residents Accounts bearing Nos.2111502000052 and 2111502000005, respectively in the year 2007 in the Canara Bank, Mahal Goraya Branch, Goraya, which were matured in the year 2008 & 2009, respectively and were renewed yearly accordingly.

The complainant came to India in the month of December 2014 with his daughter Orvinder Kaur Saggu @ Nicky, who is his legal guardian having the lasting power of attorney issued by the Officer of Public Guardian, Birmingham, to look after his property and financial affairs. He approached Canara Bank and requested that the amount deposited in the two FCNRs may be transferred to his Account No.43974642, sort code 20-08-98 of Barclays Bank UK

Since, the request of the NRI was not being entertained by Canara Bank the petitioner contacted HC to intervene in the matter and make appropriate order. The Punjab & Haryana HC eventually ordered the transfer to the specified account, acknowledging Mr Saggu's legitimate claim over the deposited amounts. 

Now Complainant is before State commission under the Consumer Protection Act where the State Consumer Commission partially upheld the complainant's claim against the Bank for deficient services related to the release of FCNR (Foreign Currency Non-Resident) amounts.

During the hearing before the state commission, Canara Bank contended that Mr Saggu is not of sound mind since 2008 and accordingly, a power of attorney (POA) dated 24 November 2014 issued by him in favour of his daughter Orvinder Kaur Saggu is not acceptable.

 However, the state commission held that there is no evidence that Mr Saggu is of unsound mind and was incompetent to execute the POA in favour of his daughter and there is no requirement to have the legal guardianship certificate from the National Trust Act 1999.

Bank further argued that complainant is not maintainable. The released amount was under the direction of the Hon'ble Court in a sub-judice matter. The definitions within Sec. 2 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, including "Complaint," "Complainant," "Consumer dispute," and "Deficiency of Service," do not align with the facts of this case

The State Commission assertion that the OP Bank assured the tracing and informing of original records to the complainant over the phone lacks substantiation. 

Family dispute was another issue raised According to the Bank; the complainant has married twice in his life. From the first wife, he has a son namely, Pritpal Singh Saggu, who lives in India whereas the petitioner has a daughter from his second wife, who lives with him in England. Since, the petitioner is alive and has given the power of attorney to his daughter to look after his property and financial affairs and there is no dispute that the amount deposited in the two FCNRs actually belongs to the complainant who wanted the said amount to be transferred to his account in Barclays Bank at Birmingham (UK).Bank  has no authority to refuse the transfer of the amount only on the ground that there may be a dispute in future, which may be raised by the son of the petitioner claiming the said amount, which is subject matter of the dispute State Commission did not find any evidence in the wake of clear power of attorney in favour of the daughter of Complainant  

The State Commission directed the bank Vide Order dated 30.01.2018 to pay the complainant Rs. 5,09,288/- for losses incurred due to income loss during encashment, legal fees, hotel expenses, and compensation.

Appellant(s) in FA/675/2018 have challenged the Order of the State Commission mainly on the grounds that: complainant is not maintainable.

NCDRC decided the case on 13 December 2023 and increased compensation payable to Rs 9.09 lakh from Rs 5.09 lakh. holding that complainant deserves more for the mental agony and hardship at this age.